telivy_get_breach_data

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation ('Get') and hints at sensitive data ('dark-web/credential exposure'), but it does not disclose permissions, response shape, sensitivity handling, or any side effects. For a no-annotation tool, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The one-parameter tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must clearly convey the identifier semantics. It fails to explain the relationship between the 'Assessment ID' and the 'external scan's domain(s)' it references. This ambiguity can lead an agent to pass the wrong ID type. Return structure is also unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning; it leaves ambiguous how the 'Assessment ID' maps to the 'external scan's domain(s)' reference. It does not contradict the schema, but it also fails to enrich it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('breach records'), and a distinctive context ('surfaced for an external scan's domain(s)', 'dark-web/credential exposure'). This differentiates it from generic external-scan finding tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling it is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: an agent looking for breach/credential-exposure data tied to an external scan would reasonably select this tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusion criteria, so the agent must infer the right context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.